As always, see it first at BlueNC. -Sam
My friend Bill Jackson has been pretty much everything a man can be in politics - professor, blogger, Senate staffer, White House staffer, candidate, and most recently, the treasurer of my County Commission Campaign. He's almost always been right on Iraq, from when we opposed the escalation to war together in 2003 to the wrong turns it would take after "Mission Accomplished."
And we've (mostly) agreed on impeachment; In Bill's words:
"Since I do not favor the overthrow of our constitutional system of government ... and since the impeachment of Bush is not about to happen with Cheney as Veep--I am left with thinking about how to nudge the ball downfield in a 51-49 Senate and a 233-202 House by squeezing the White House on every war vote opportunity. Of course, there can be legitimate differences about how best to do this."
That got Bill thinking - is there a way to set a mouse rat trap for Bush by engineering impeachment? Join me below the fold ...
First, some backstory: we've had our women and men in Congress come together as Democrats to begin to oppose this war. I'll use Bill's analysis:
The House of Representatives had voted 218 to 212 to require the president to bring most American combat troops home from Iraq by September 2008. Also included in the package was a complex series of political and economic benchmarks tied conditionally to timetables for U.S. troop pullouts, culminating in a firm deadline of Aug. 31, 2008, for the removal of American combat forces.
So what's the best way to deal with Bush? Impeachment? Congressional rat trap? I hope you didn't say withdraw bill ...
Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA) had wanted an immediate withdrawal and resisted the idea of voting for almost $100 billion in additional spending for the war. But he came to realize that a failure to pass the withdrawal provision would become a victory for the Bush administration, that is, the passage of an emergency spending bill with no conditions at all. In deciding to vote for the bill, he said: "I'm into results. I'm not into therapy."
I'm glad our Democrats have stood together to oppose this war, even though many of us don't like the idea of deadlines. We need to stand together on this, since the only other option is impeachment. Sure, we might want a plan that has a chance at saving Iraq, or a reduction in troops, but unity is more important at this point in the fight. Next time you see your Congressman, tell them that we need to stand together - and that we're glad there's finally a united front. Maybe even send the present and future democratic delegation some love.
BUT - what if standing up to Bush doesn't work? We know that a veto is coming, and we're used to the idea of him ignoring the American people. At this point, many Americans - including on Bill talks to in his article - support impeachment, something I've opposed for quite a while, as tempting as it sounds. Impeachment would get us out of Iraq (assuming we get rid of Cheney, too). Unfortunately, while I've seen a good case for Cheney, I haven't seen a case for Bush that addresses all of the issues I had with the idea. And, simply, it's impossible in the current climate - even if there are solid reasons for indictment.
Is there a way, however, to cause a clear rationale for impeachment, and to get us out of Iraq? Again, from Bill's latest article:
Assuming late April arrives with continuing deadlock between Congress and the White House over withdrawal deadlines, I would favor a firm stand by the House against passing ANY supplemental defense appropriations bill. This might prompt Bush to commit an unconstitutional act in spending money not authorized by Congress, or the ruse of shifting funds among Pentagon accounts--on Thursday morning Congress was notified that in order to meet the force-protection needs of the Marine Corps and the Army, the Defense Department is borrowing or reprogramming funds from other Marine and Army procurement programs-- and thereby contribute substantially to a constitutional crisis that he might very well lose. I said "might."
Our Democratic Congressional Delegation has reached a good place right now - but not good enough. It's time to tie the purse strings, even if an impeachment trap is just an idea that "might" work. We need to be clear to the American public that cutting off the funding will not hurt our soldiers any time soon: "there is so much money in the Pentagon pipeline, as has so often been the case from past appropriations yet to be spent, that the funding of the troops will go on, under a cloud." Even so, public opinion isn't behind cutting off the funding, and without a change in those polls, even good Democrats remain timid.
The money's already there, but enough is enough. I've been a fan of the Biden-Gelb Plan for Iraq, but I don't think our country can wait long enough to implement it. We need to get rid of the war or get rid of Bush/Cheney. This means a shift in public opinion to combat the incrementalism of the House and Senate. So here's the question I'd like to pose to you: how do we shift public opinion without relying on the blood of countless more Americans and Iraqis? And what are you willing to do to help cause the shift we need to end this war?
PS - If you didn't click one of the links, please take some time out to read Bill's great article.